TheHiddenCatboy @ jhymesba @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

577

Joined

2 yr. ago

Awesome quote and context.

The First Iraqi War passed the test. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went in to give them a little taste of that #1 Military Spending and remind them that we're the big kid on the block, and in the moment, we were the big kid who beat up bullies and gave the little boy his lunch money back. Ukraine is much the same way, and we'd be justified in setting down troops in Ukraine and driving the Russians right back to the agreed upon borders and then stopping and hardening borders up there.

We're not always perfect. The Second Iraq War showed that. And while we entered Afghanistan with good intentions (Bin Laden sleeping with the fishes was a net good for the world), we got bogged down in the sort of stuff that turned Vietnam bad. But we can't throw the good wars (World War 2 and beating the Nazis being the biggest example of these) away just because we've done wrong in war. We just need to be cognizant of what we're doing in EACH war and be willing to draw our lines in the sand, much like Bush-41 did with the first Iraq war.

Good point.

I still think we handcuff ourselves too much with Rule 3, especially if the comments put up by the trolls are left up by the mod team while removing our comments. I'm not going to go so far as to call the mods here partisan, just unintentionally handicapping the community against paid actors. I am absolutely certain the account I was replying to was disingenuous and not here to have an honest debate. That we can't accuse users of being bots or paid actors or trolls when they most clearly are definitely is ceding the floor to them. We then have to engage them like they are honest and open debaters, when they are most definitely not. Some of us get frustrated with the same old bullshit going unchallenged and unchecked, so I can see why those people would like to block, but you make a good point about ceding the floor to them.

Hmm...their comments are still up, though, but I'll take a ban. Still, I think these rules are unnecessarily hampering engaging people who are not here for honest debate. But they are the rules...so I'll abide by them. I'll just block the trolls, which leads to them being able to say their nonsense unchallenged, which I think hurts us all.

Unfortunately, you can't call them out like they should be called out because we handcuff ourselves with rules about 'civility' when they have none. Thus we only can try to call their arguments out, which of course leads to a circular argument where you lay out the counterpoints to their nonsense and they repeat it, just more fervently. Within the context of both the rules and the mods choice to enforce them more on our side than the dishonest people who come here, ESPECIALLY with the prohibitions of calling a spade a spade (no calling shills, no calling trolls, no calling Russian plants, no calling out as a bot or a sock puppet, even if it's clear the account in question is what's being called). When you're basically told 'be nice to people who are not being nice to you', the only real answer is to block and move on.

I'll say this, jordanlund. It's very telling that you leave the jerk's comments I replied to up while removing mine.

Fair point! Still, let's be careful with dismissing these polls. If someone can tar your policy with labels like Liberal, Socialist, or Leftist, it can turn a lot of Americans off.

There's definitely a political direction in the US, something hard-leftists don't get. Here's a set of fun polls:

• Pew Research
• Gallop
• Yougov

All three links try to answer the painful question of: "How do American voters line up on ideologies?" Gallop finds that America as a whole identifies more Conservative (36%) than Liberal (24%), with another whole 36% saying they are neither Liberal NOR Conservative. The Other Side is divided up into 20% Very Conservative, 49% Conservative, 27% Moderate, and a tiny sliver of Liberal or Very Liberal Republicans (that surprises me all by itself! Where do they find these people?!). We here on the Left count 16% as Very Liberal, 31% as Liberal, and a whopping 45% as Moderate (and another 5% as Conservatives, but we know we have those). Unfortunately, we have to deal with the fact that we live in a country where 7 out of every 20 people say they are neither Left NOR Right and view both parties from a 'pox on both' perspective. At least they're moving to our side because Fascism Bad, amirite? :)

Gallop points out that even as people become more self-identified as liberal on social issues (33% Liberal, 32% Moderate, 32% Conservative), they remain very moderate to conservative on economic issues (23% Liberal, 35% Moderate, 39% Conservative). That's why Liberals have to focus on social issues because economic issues don't favour them. 69% of voters in the Democratic Party agree on liberal approaches to social issues, while only 49% favour a conservative approach.

But above all, the most interesting one is the YouGov poll. When people were asked about how their politics was described, 21% said "Moderate" described them well, and another 33% said it described them partially. Conservative got 28% and 25% on the same areas. Progressive only scored 18% and 24% in those areas, and Liberal scored 16% and 24%. Socialist? 7+21%. Left Wing? 11+16%. But they went further. They asked which terms used to describe the respondants, and which terms never described them. Socialist and Left-Wing shared a stat line on that response -- 51% of people said these terms NEVER described them, while another 6% said the terms used to describe them. Only Radical (64%) and Anarchist (67%) scored harder on the 'I have never been this).

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that today's Democrats are Reagan's Republicans, but as long as you keep in mind that you live in a country that over half of people polled vehemently disagreed with being labelled socialist or left-wing, and tailor your solutions to account for that, while trying to do the best to represent Progressive or Liberal goals, I won't complain hard about whether or not 2024 Dems would be at home in the 1980 RNC.

Isn't that the truth....

I can take a few bad words from you, 'mate'. If the mods ban you, that might just tell you something, though!

It hasn't even crossed your mind for a second that I might be a real person expressing my real thoughts, has it?

It has! And I evaluated that thought for lots more than a single second and came to the following pair of conclusions.

1. Either you're being disingenuous here and are everything I am accusing you of being...
2. Or you honestly hold these beliefs, making you a useful idiot and enabling those people who are what I accuse you of being.

I've given up assuming incompetence where there could be malice, so I'm just going straight to accusing you of being disingenuous. And I'm not the only one....that should tell you something.

So, like all of your other concerns, I'm dismissing this one.

Two very good replies. I'll add to them.

No, she specifically called out the racist, sexist, anti-gay, anti-trans jerks that thought the only worthwhile people in this country were White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males. The Media turned this truthful comment into a big hubbub and inflamed people against the comment, implanting the meme idea in your head that she was calling anyone who didn't vote for her deplorable. Her mistake was running away from that comment when it became clear the 'liberal' (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....) Press was going to hit her over it, rather than sticking up for herself and saying "I was clear that not every voter who votes against me is deplorable, but nevertheless, a large portion of Trump's voter-base is the kind of person I'd call deplorable!"

First, I'm not your mate so knock that shit off.

Second, the article is about the House, not about Biden. I don't fucking care what the first sentence says because the article is no more about the first fucking sentence than it is about the headlines or comments. Again. We're seeing your concerns and telling you to fuck off with that bullshit.

Because your concerns are meaningless and without merit, and repetitive, we've decided we've had enough of you and are calling you out on your bullshit. We're also keying on your sea-lioning tendencies, and just refusing to play your stupid game politely.

We'd like not to play your stupid game at all, but we know how this works. You peel off someone who isn't paying attention, getting them to vote third party or stay home on false accusations that Democrats are Russophobic, making it more likely that the Shitgibbon can steal the Election in November. Thus we have to address your bullshit and make it clear that Gabbard, Stein, and Trump DO have pro-Russian policies at a minimum, if not full on Russian ties, and that we're not red-scaring here, but pointing out that an honest to goodness Russian Autocracy lead by a Strong-Man Dictator every bit as bad as what Trump wants to be here, is pulling strings behind the scenes and inflaming already existing (and in the case of Anti-Vax, outright made up 'Moon Landing Faked/Earth is Flat' levels of bullshit fake) divisions in the country to ensure the Autocrat Trump gets into office and tears down civil rights like Putin is doing in Russia.

And I think the entire ... what does Lemmy call their equivalent of a subreddit anyway ... community is doing a good job of exposing your bullshit.

In all this bullshit, there is one kernel of truth I want to address.

Russia hasn't created anything in the shitstorm they're inflaming. This bullshit we're dealing with with all our divisions is home-grown and home-made. If you believe that all our problems are Russian, you're just setting yourself up with some home-grown xenophobia while you ignore the real problem. And Russia just falling into a sinkhole one day won't solve the massive number of problems that America has, the same problems that Adolf Hitler schemed to exploit in World War 2.

But what is not gotten here is that Russia HAS exploited these problems, just like Hitler did in World War 2. Russia may not have 'taken over every aspect of American government, politics, and media', but they HAVE identified useful idiots and empowered them to disrupt our nation's well of discourse.

Jill Stein has literally been photographed sitting beside Putin, and she advocates for Pro-Russian positions like withdrawing our aid to Ukraine, while inflaming fake divisions like whether or not to vaccinate against diseases. Likewise with Tucker Carlson and Mr. "I'll end the war in Ukraine on day one" Trump. We're not keen on surrendering a nation to an authoritarian dictator like Putin, so he can go oppress gays and transgendered people over there. A Trump win here would definitely enable that, not to mention a very Russian-like playbook of capturing the government's Civil Service to staff with sycophants, a Unitary Executive that has absolute power without checks and balances from the other branches of government, the total evisceration of the Minority Party's power (and the relegation of the Dems to that minority status -- Permanent Republican Majority, which preceded Trump as a Republican goal), and the codification of oppression of Gays, non-Christians, non-Whites, and women. Dems may be using scare tactics around these truths, but they are truths, and sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade.

Now, why might we call people like this a Russian troll? Well, let's stop and think for a moment. Trump is Russia's favourite candidate, end of line. He'll put pressure on Ukraine to play ball with giving up the disputed territories, and he'd definitely stop the flow of guns, missiles, bombs, tanks, and planes to Ukraine. While the EU may step up, 1) Russia has plans for the EU, and 2), the EU can't hope to replace what the biggest spender in military can afford to contribute. Getting the US out of Ukraine's side will improve Russia's odds and serve their purpose. We know that Russia is hiring trolls to influence Western thinking -- we have empirical evidence of this! It's part of a massive Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian) cyber plan. We've even seen their hardware -- massive banks of smartphones hooked up to a central computer run by an operator to post inflaming and discouraging comments.

Now, imagine a comment coming in having 'concerns' about how every post that defends Russian assets is 'Dems falling for scare-mongering', despite the clear evidence that Gabbard has been under Russia's thumb, defending Stein's own Russian connections, and claiming Trump of all people was not under his authoritarian buddy's thumb contrary to EVERYTHING we've seen these past 8+ years? I see the concern, pal, and see it for exactly what it is: a problem that exists only in certain stupid little heads, and I call them out on it.

People, this guy isn't here to honestly debate us. Keep up the good work calling his bullshit out, though!

Edited: To remove reference to an individual poster.

I get what he's saying. You're here grinding your anti-Biden ax, long after Biden's no longer on the ballot. You might have had a valid question about why everyone was so hesitant to change horses mid-race. Jesus answered that question. We took a risk that could have resulted in a much worse outcome because frequently in history, it has. And Harris was an uninspired candidate in 2020, which many of us worried she'd be in 2024. That should be good enough to end this conversation...maybe with a 'Gee, I'm glad Harris upped her game between 2020 and now because we needed what we got this last month,' if you ABSOLUTELY have to.

But you're harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives. You're getting heavily downvoted and questioned about your motive. Maybe read the room? Biden is yesterday's news. The only reason we think you're harping on him is to try to depress Democratic turnout and we're telling you to knock it the fuck off.

This is what they actually learned.

• 1968, 1980, 1984: They learned that turning off moderate voters by putting too progressive of a candidate can lose you an election hard (McGovern, Carter, Mondale).
• 1992: They learned that a strong third party candidate can cannibalise voters from a weak or ineffectual major party, much like Perot took votes from the Republican Party when Bush-41 went back on his 'no new taxes' pledge.
• 2000: They learned that trying to placate moderates by picking a more moderate candidate costs them the election as surely as placating progressives with an ultra-progressive candidate does, just by thinner margins.
• 2008: They learned that hate for Republicans is far more effective of a strategy than building coalitions...
• 2010: ...but they learned that Progressives turn into fair-weather friends when they don't get exactly what they want.
• 2012: But that Republican hate is still useful....
• 2014: ...and our fair-weather friends are still useful to Team Red.
• 2016: We relearned the lesson we should have learned in 2000 by placating moderates and running a dynasty.
• 2020: But that Republican hate is still useful!

We barely averted Biden as the Moderate Placator in 2024, running on the fear and hate of the Republican Party to make an otherwise moderate in Kamala Harris our standard-bearer, but if she keeps up with the talks about price controls, we MIGHT just find out if the lessons of 1968, 1980, and 1984 still apply.

And Jackie's Fridge is right. In an election split 51 (Left) and 49 (Right), if you can convince 3 Left-Leaning voters to vote Third Party, you have convinced them to throw away their votes and assure all 51 voters on the Left get what they DON'T want while the Conservatives win on a 49/48/3 split. Unless and until you use a voting system that allows those 3 votes to NOT give the win to the 48 voters, voting third party is just helping the major party most opposed to your platform win. And if you need any evidence of how this screws up Leftists, look no further than our northern neighbour, Canada, specifically Ontario, where vote-splitting between the two major Left-Wing parties (Liberal, New Democratic Party) lets the Conservative party run the show.